Water protests continue

Property rights activists protested the California Department of Fish and Game’s (CDFG) Scott and Shasta River flow study process for the third time in a week yesterday at the Holiday Inn Express in Yreka.

Property rights activists protested the California Department of Fish and Game’s (CDFG) Scott and Shasta River flow study process for the third time in a week yesterday at the Holiday Inn Express in Yreka.

As with last week’s workshop focusing on the Scott River, Normandeau Environmental Consultants – contracted by CDFG – began the Legal Institutional Analysis Model (LIAM) process for stakeholders in the Shasta River by holding a workshop to begin a consensus-building process. The process is intended to identify stakeholders, including landowners, who will make up an advisory group to help form an instream flow study plan that will later be implemented by CDFG. According to the agency, the study will ultimately be used to make minimum instream flow recommendations to the California Water Resources Control Board for the protection of salmonid fishes in the Scott and Shasta rivers.

But after many similar studies performed by various organizations and agencies and several other failed attempts at consensus building in local watersheds, landowners say they are fed up. Many in attendance Tuesday said they believed the flow study would be used to take water and property rights from landowners, ranchers and farmers who rely on them for their livelihood.

While the LIAM workshop process is not structured to include public statements by non-participants, representatives of Scott Valley Protect Our Water (POW), the Siskiyou County Water Users Association (SCWUA) and other concerned landowners and water users took turns voicing their objections and encouraging attendees to not participate in the process. The statements lasted about an hour.

Approximately 20 people showed up at the workshop for the sole purpose of protesting the flow study and then promptly left after everyone had make their statements – leaving six landowners and 15 representatives of resource agencies to complete the LIAM workshop for the Shasta River.

Pastor Bernard Van Ee offered the first comment. He said he had never attended such a meeting before but was very concerned for the people in his church, who he said were being put under “tremendous pressure to do something that seems to have a hidden agenda.”

“Well, if I was a prophet in the Old Testament,” Van Ee said, “I would think it’s always about power and money and take-over by other people to control private property, which is a form of governmental stealing which took place in the Old Testament under Amos’ rule. And he was pretty tough on the leaders for their irresponsible abuses of the common person.”

Jerry Bacigalupi, a Shasta Valley rancher, said “we all know the problem is not up here in the valleys. The problem is the ocean.” He added that no one here will participate in the flow study process until conditions in the ocean and the lower river are studied.

Page 2 of 2 - “Once you go back and you do that study, you come knocking at our door if you define this area as being a problem. Then we will participate,” Bacigalupi told Thalken.

His comments echoed those of several other protesters. Some cited this year’s abundant Chinook run as proof that changing ocean conditions have more influence over salmon runs than inland habitat conditions.

Bacigalupi also said CDFG is wasting taxpayer money by repeating a previous study done by the agency in partnership with Humboldt State University. He cited CDFG’s Instream Flow Program 2010 Annual Report, in which the agency says the field work for a Shasta River instream flow study would be completed by the end of summer 2011.

Thalken said he is currently unaware of the status of that study but agreed that existing data should and will be considered in the ultimate recommendations for a flow study plan. He added that there are some options for increasing instream flows without altering current water adjudications. He said the parameters of Normandeau’s contract do not include the study of ocean conditions but said the concept would be included in recommendations to CDFG.

Leo Bergeron with the SCWUA said he believes the county has ultimate authority over local water resources as granted by Congress in the Klamath Basin Compact. He added, “We know from past experience that Fish and Game have an ulterior motive and this is another step in that process.”

John Menke, retired rangeland ecologist and POW member, said resource decisions need to be based on sound science without political influence. He criticized SCWUA’s assertion that coho salmon are not native to the Klamath River watershed.

“That’s ludicrous,” Menke said of that assertion. “There is no question. It is a native fish here. However, it was never very abundant ... They don’t do well and they never will do well. It’s the perfect species for the control of water.” He called the SCWUA members “quacks who are talking outside their area of understanding.” Menke volunteered to serve as a flow study adviser but insisted he will only work with “real scientists,” not “techies.”

While Normandeau and agency representatives expressed disappointment in the level of protest against the flow study planning process, they said progress was still being made. They said landowners who did stay for the workshop contributed valuable input to the process and several other landowners have provided input through one-on-one meetings and online questionnaires.

A meeting will be held tomorrow, Dec. 13 from 4-7 p.m. at the Holiday Inn Express in Yreka to present a summary of the results of yesterday’s workshop and to gather public input on the results.